House of Commons · Westminster Hall
28 June 2023 · 5 other contributors · 4,789 words
Opened by Caroline Lucas Green Brighton, Pavilion
Responding minister: Graham Stuart
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Caroline Lucas raised concerns about rosebank oilfield: environmental impacts in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key points
Key requests to Government
The Government should review its approach to oil and gas licensing, scrap the investment allowance for fossil fuels, withdraw from the energy charter treaty, and stop Rosebank's development.
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Approving the Rosebank oilfield would release over 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is more than combined annual emissions of all low-income countries. The project does not align with climate targets and could harm marine ecosystems.
She thanked Caroline Lucas for securing the debate on Rosebank oilfield, described it as absurd given the recent CCC report that highlighted a lack of confidence in reaching net zero goals due to approval of new fossil fuel infrastructure.
He acknowledged the leadership shown by Caroline Lucas on environmental issues and highlighted constituents' support for a just transition, stating that meeting climate goals and energy requirements can be achieved without new oil and gas exploration.
He congratulated Caroline Lucas for securing the debate, criticised the influence of oil and gas companies on UK politics and questioned how a climate crisis can be solved if the government is in thrall to corporate interests.
He questioned the disingenuity of lobby groups claiming that oilfields could save carbon dioxide emissions and argued against comparing UK extraction carbon emissions with those elsewhere as it is both misleading and greenwashing.
He agreed with Caroline Lucas's argument against new extraction at Rosebank, asking why the Government argues the opposite of common sense on reducing oil and gas reliance. He also suggested that the decision should be devolved to the Scottish Government. With the greatest of respect, what the Minister says does not make sense. If most of the oil and gas coming out of Rosebank will be exported, how does not doing this lead to an increase in imports?
Government Response
Graham StuartIt is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion on securing this important debate. The Minister highlighted the achievements of the Climate Change Committee in driving climate action and noted significant reductions in emissions since 1990. He stated that development proposals for oilfields like Rosebank are subject to rigorous regulatory processes by the North Sea Transition Authority and Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning, which include extensive environmental impact assessments and public consultations. The Minister emphasized that while the UK is committed to net zero emissions by 2050, it remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels currently, with oil and gas production being crucial for national security and job creation. He argued against policies proposed by opposition parties, stating they would lead to higher imports of liquefied natural gas with greater emission intensity, loss of jobs, revenue for the Exchequer, and hinder transition towards cleaner energy technologies.